Photo - Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate (political fraud)

Well, it was very nice of you to ditifully copy the DailyKos talking points without question like a good and obedient Obamatron. Your master is
pleased.

Originally posted by XyZeR
Haha these birthers are even more thick then i could imagine...

First, the hospital is Coast Provincial General Hospital (sometimes said to be Coast Province General Hospital), not Coast General Hospital.

So which is it? Oh, you mean it was known by more than 1 name? Just NOT the name you don't want it to be known by, right? Just how many "Coast
General Hospitals" were there in Mombassa in the early 1960s? Is it so hard to believe that whoever typed the document simply typed in "Coast
General Hospital"? Is that what it's know as? Evidently...

"These volunteers from Egypt, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and the United States worked with a Kenyan medical team at Coast General
Hospital."

Second, Kenya was a Dominion the date this certificate was allegedly issued and would not become a republic for 8 months.

Kenya declared its Independence from Great Britain in 1963 and evidently started to call itself "The Republic of Kenya"...unless the writer of this
newspaper article from 1963 was a prophet and called it "Republic of Kenya" before Kenya came up with that.

"Mombasa officially belonged to Zanzibar from 1895 to 1963 when it was ceded to the newly independent Kenya".

Fourth, Obama's father's village would be nearer to Nairobi, not Mombasa.

Uh, so??? Obama's father was Muslim and likely Arab as well as being African. Kenya is predominately Christian, but the Coast Province, where Mombasa
is at, is majority Muslim. As a coastal trading center, Mombassa would have better facilities than Nairobi where Obama Sr. probably had little or no
ties.

Fifth, the number 47O44-- 47 is Obama's age when he became president, followed by the letter O (not a zero) followed by 44--he is the 44th
president.

Uh huh. Pick a number. Any number. And I'll tie it to Obama or anyone else you'd like. Go ahead. Make my day.

Sixth, EF Lavender is a laundry detergent.

WRONG. "Earth Friendly Lavender" is a detergent, NOT "EF Lavender". If this document were as weak as you claim, you wouldn't have to stretch the
truth would you?

"The term Christian name is often used as a general synonym for given name".

Secondly, "According to the most recent Kenyan Demographic and Health Survey,1 which presents statistics for a nationally representative sample of
women between the ages of 15 and 49 and men between 15 and 54, approximately 88.5% of the population is Christian." And it was even a HIGHER % of
Christians (and fewer Muslims) the farther you back to 1963.

Eigth, his father (born in 1961) would have been 24 or 25 when he was born and not 26.

Fact is, the exact birth date isn't known for Obama Sr.

Ninth, it was called the "Central Nyanza District," not Nyanza Province. The regions were changed to provinces in 1970.

Really? Here's a little Kenyan education for you. Provinces and districts are 2 different things. Provinces in Kenya are made up of many districts.
For you (or whoever you copied this from) to say something as stupid as this would be like to say "it was called Santa Clara County", not "State of
California" on someone's birth certificate.

Fact is, they WERE called provinces in 1964.

"This is a scanned version of the paper map entitled: Kenya produced in 1964 by the Survey of Kenya. The map represents the boundaries of Kenya as
well as provincial boundaries".

Just thought I would throw that out there for all these birthers to eat their own puke

[edit on 3-8-2009 by MaynardisGod]

Well done, but your right so essentially RON PAUL should have been president. Anyway though this whole thread is such a technicality, hes been in the
USA his whole life, they both have, a piece of paper doesn't change that. As far as I'm concerned they're both as eligable as anyone else who has
been here since they were a human sized football. Perhaps its time for our constitution to be cleaned up and some common sense tossed in there.

That's not even true. If Obama was born in Kenya, he obviously "hasn't been here his entire life". Additionally, he was adopted by his step-father
and taken to Indonesia to live. Finally, there's nothing wrong with abiding by the Constitution is there? If Obama was not born on US soil, he is NOT
eligible for the Office of President. If you don't like it, contact your congressman or woman.

You know, I'm actually going to tell the truth here because I want to get this off my chest. I hate him because he's black. Yep you heard right
he's black and not fit to be the leader of anything other than the head of the unemployment line. That's my opinion. Why is so bad to dislike
someone for the color of their skin? It's a free country right? Why can't I say that?

There now...do you feel better that it's off your chest...your dirty little secret? If you don't know why it's bad to hate full stop, then there is
no hope for your simplistic mindset. So black people don't deserve to work either, or mix with you wonderful white people? You really are pathetic,
but what worries me more is that you feel that someone like you would be a better bet and superior even though riven with hatred...even though your
pathetic hatred makes you instantly inferior. I doubt many here have any racial denigration as their motive to find the truth. But then truth will
always elude people like you because you have a fog in front of your eyes...and it ain't pretty. It is called stupidity and ignorance...and you have
proclaimed your colours to the world. People, and I use the term lightly, like you, would make me back the man to the hilt on principle. But actually
it is not about him, black, white or pink...it is about being accountable and telling the truth. But then you wouldn't be able to grasp that would
you?

Originally posted by pwrthtbe
You know, I'm actually going to tell the truth here because I want to get this off my chest. I hate him because he's black. Yep you heard right
he's black and not fit to be the leader of anything other than the head of the unemployment line. That's my opinion. Why is so bad to dislike
someone for the color of their skin? It's a free country right? Why can't I say that? There are a ton of people who are just too afraid to say it in
a public forum. You don't HAVE to be politically correct. I've read ALL 47 pages and I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot of people
that are just too afraid to say why they don't want him in office. He's black. That's my reason. Now THAT was the truth! Let the banning, flaming,
cracks on my intelligence, location and anything else begin!

Hating someone for their skin color is beyond moronic. Nobody can help what skin color they were born with. It's makes as much sense as to say "I
hate everyone born with red hair!"

Secondly, Obama is as much white as he is black. So do you hate him only 50% as much as you hate people with 2 black parents? What if someone has 2
white parents but 1 black grandparent? Do you only hate them 25% of the time? As anyone with a clue can see, hating someone because of their skin
color is pure idiocy.

You can speak for yourself, but the people I know that didn't vote for Obama had NOTHING to do with his skin color and EVERYTHING to do with what his
politics - SOCIALISM - which we are seeing him trying to ram through on a daily basis.

Originally posted by pwrthtbe
You know, I'm actually going to tell the truth here because I want to get this off my chest. I hate him because he's black.

Way to make this a race thread, tool. Before you, there were many claiming that those questioning the BC picture in question were "racists" with
nothing to back up that statement. Thanks to you, sir, you've made it harder for those wanting to actually STAY ON TOPIC, and research the points in
the OP w/o stupid racial comments like the one you just made. Make a race thread ok? This thread is NOT about race and you only add to the whole
"race card" argument that this thread NOR this *world* NEEDS. Please go away, savvy?

Originally posted by pwrthtbe
You know, I'm actually going to tell the truth here because I want to get this off my chest. I hate him because he's black. Yep you heard right
he's black and not fit to be the leader of anything other than the head of the unemployment line. That's my opinion. Why is so bad to dislike
someone for the color of their skin? It's a free country right? Why can't I say that? There are a ton of people who are just too afraid to say it in
a public forum. You don't HAVE to be politically correct. I've read ALL 47 pages and I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot of people
that are just too afraid to say why they don't want him in office. He's black. That's my reason. Now THAT was the truth! Let the banning, flaming,
cracks on my intelligence, location and anything else begin!

Finally some transparency from the birthers. Good for you for being honest unlike the majority of these people.

How is this breaking political news and why isn't this labeled a hoax?

I mean aside from the fact that the OP posts a document that appears to be so fake it actually attempts to mock ones intelligence, the document was
produced with no proof of where it came from, who the person that obtained it is, and whether that person is credible. Yet it claims to be photo proof
from the title. People in the thread even BELIEVED it was authentic.

That is how we do it here now?
Post lowbrow chain-mail material as News?

So what's next?

"Here's a personal picture of McCains Chinese birth certificate!! Don't ask me if its real or where it came from because I don't know and can't say.
Lets just discuss the photo as if it were from a legitimate source though."

Finally some transparency from the birthers. Good for you for being honest unlike the the majority of these of these people.

lol really? cuz this thread was named "be honest, are you racist?" ?? Don't sink that low. You and your pal should go discuss their *honest* hatred
for people in another thread. THIS thread however, DOES NOT IMPLY any such discussion.

Edit for clarity: See that? Some guy just used your racist remarks to label "birthers" racist. CuriousSkeptic was just waiting for your post so that
he could talk about the "transparency" of the "birthers". Incredible.

Originally posted by Electro38
But here's the first black pres and wow, we're trying like nuts to dig up documents, etc. Searching for anything that could be used against Obama,
anything! That's really amazing. Speaks volumes.

My opinion is this has nothing to do with the constitution.

Speaking, totally, for myself?? IT IS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION!! Nothing more....

Granted some may have other motives, but I believe that for many it is the same as with myself. I am not hunting down anything - just reading all I
can concerning this topic. I have only 1 thing to say about it for sure.

Why does Obama not provide the facts himself?? He has the capability.....why do all he can to surpress the very documents that would prove he is
Constitutionally qualified to be our President?? Just makes no sense to me and I am sure to many others.

Originally posted by pteridine
The date on the copy was Feb 1964 and was from the "Republic of Kenya." Kenya was not a republic until December of 1964.Forgery.

That's been addressed a dozen times.
The document was during a transition period.
Independence was declared Dec 63
The Republic became official in Dec 64.
Both the coat of arms AND the 'Republic of Kenya' could have been used
during the transition. www.kenya-information-guide.com...

"Kenya Independence Act of 1963, Schedules 1: Section #6 (2)(b)... (or if I want to make it easier, Page 8 in the PDF document, last paragraph).

(2) In this paragraph " the constitutional provisions " means the
following, that is to say-
(a) this Act ;
(b) any Order in Council revoking the existing Constitution
Order and providing for a new constitution for Kenya to
come into effect on the appointed day ;

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
In the end, you should just let it go. Its not going to change ANYTHING.
.... All the president is to us is a fall guy. He's who you blame when you don't get your way....

HELL NO we won't let go. And he's not just a 'fall guy'. He's in this up to his eyeballs and he knows it! That's why he's working so hard to
hide his birth certificate(s).

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
The truth is all that matters here ... or so it should be.

Absolutely!! So let's keep focused on the document.

Originally posted by Electro38
Be honest to yourselves.

YOU be honest for a change.
Will ya' quit with the insinutations and outright accusations of racism.
It's getting old and it's NOT the subject of this thread.
The document is.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
the font used is Schmutz, which was invented in 1995.

The rest of what you posted has already been debunked.
The info at that site in regards to those items isn't true.
This is the only thing left. We need to check the font on the document.
I'm not sure how to do that. Anyone know?

Originally posted by Electro38
Anyone here rich? I don't mind having rich people pay some extra taxes instead of the other way around.

If there was anything to the doc, don't you think the repubs would have been all over it.

I said this earlier but here it goes again. The Republicans may not have/will not say anything, yet, so as to not appear desperate. They may have
known about this all along and decided to not do anything because they knew that one day, it would surface, Obama would be forced from office,
effectively making McCain president, and vanquishing their political rivals. In short, if this is true, the Republicans come out on top if they just
don't do anything.

Originally posted by Militant1
As the consitution offers no definition of the term natural born citizen what exactly would be the argument if congress did define it? Congresses
definitation would have to be considered unconstitutional in order for the Supreme court to over turn it. What exactly are you going to compare it
too? There is absoulty nothing in the US Constitution that defines the term natural born. That being said the Supreme Court would have nothing to
compare a modern definition too, and thus could not rule it unconstitutional.

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides
the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States
at birth:"

*Anyone born inside the United States

*Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

*Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

*Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S.
national

*Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

*Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

*Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for
at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

The issue isn't about citizenship. It is about where he was born. So, giving citizenship laws doesn't solve anything. I don't think that anyone
is really doubting that he's a citizen. Just, that if he was born in Kenya, he's ineligible for the presidency.

Originally posted by lee anoma
How is this breaking political news and why isn't this labeled a hoax?

Because, as much as Obama followers want to immediately label this as a hoax, we have not determined if it's probably real or probably fake. And on
the internet, we'll never be able to say for sure one way or the other.

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
Finally some transparency from the birthers. Good for you for being honest unlike the majority of these people.

So all 'birthers' are liars and racists? that's pathetic of you.

Originally posted by Wookiep
In an attempt to stay ON TOPIC...I'd like to ask again... does anyone know *when* this picture of the BC was taken?

I've asked a few questions of 'the source'. I'm waiting for an answer.

Originally posted by cooler
your honest black president is proven to have lied his way into office ?

What honest president? Where? When did this happen?????

Originally posted by Loke.
this threads OP just make claims he/she do not back up which makes it a fake in my world.

1 - I made no claims either way. I just posted what a souce gave me.
2 - 'your world' ... that's a freaky place.

Originally posted by lee anoma
I now skip to the last page of all birther threads,

real good way to learn the truth in matters ..

Originally posted by XTexan
It was factcheck.org that examined the Hawaii BC and the site is still there. I have yet to see any proof that its a fake.

Factcheck is run by annenberg. Obama was on the board of directors.
They are also big Obama campaign contributors.
They can't be considered a reliable and unbiased source.

AOL Poll shows an overwhelming majority of 82% out of 110,000 people(and growing) want Barry to produce his orginal BC. This is an issue for him(and
the country), a growing issue that is fast getting out of control. He owes it to the people he SERVES to produce what is required to be POTUS.

I think its fake. Its appearance is too good (if you see what I mean). Its been folded to make it look older.

It gives the date of birth as the 4th in Kenya, date of registration as the 5th, again in Kenya and the notification date as the 9th, in Hawaii. Thats
5 days to travel across the world, with a newborn, which I think is unlikely back then (of course, I could be wrong, but medical advice used to be a
whole lot more strict back then)

I would also ask why someone would want this copy - and thats what it is if you read the bottom of the document, made up in 1964 three years after the
birth. I'm trying to figure that one out because the parents and the registrar would have a copy, and back in '64 no one knew this was going to be
an issue.

The only answer I can think of is that the parents separated in January '64 and this could be a copy made for court purposes, but even then it begs a
question as to how it was obtained and/or why it was kept.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.